Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Criminalizing omega

Women feel they should be able to go out in public spaces without sacrificing the feeling that they are still in private, which would appear to be a nonsensical position until you take Game into acccount. A woman complains about creepshots.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a creep shot is a photograph taken of an unsuspecting woman, or girl, which is then posted onto social media, blogs and websites with the hashtag #creepshot. They focus on her body – particularly her boobs, bum, legs and any visible underwear. Most of these unsolicited pictures are taken in public – whether at the gym, yoga classes (there’s a whole website dedicated to ‘girls in yoga pants’), or just walking down the street.

It’s vile. But not as vile as the feed of photographs next to it, which I can’t reproduce here. Not because they’re too graphic – most zoom in on a woman’s clothed body, although some are quite explicit and others appear to show young teenage girls – or even because they’re illegal, because they’re not. It's just that they're incredibly unethical....

It is, without question, revolting. These photographs sexually objectify women and turn them into pornography
without their consent, or even their knowledge. 'Creepy' doesn't even begin
to cover what these people - predominantly men - are doing.

If I ever chanced across a photograph of one of my body parts with a
#creepshot hashtag on it, I'd feel completely sick. Not only would it mean
that someone had sneakily photographed me in public, but it would show that
an online community of creeps were, well, perving on me. It's a horrific thought. But the worst thing is there's not much I could do
about it. They aren't committing a crime and unless they photograph someone
underage, do an upskirt shot or take it in a private place, this is totally
legal.

The hilarious thing about this is the blithe solipsism. These are the same women that devour magazines devoted to nothing but creepshots of celebrities. These are the same women who enthusiastically support the Panopticon in the name of public safety. These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.

So, it's obvious that they don't mind at all being photographed in public. It's obvious that they don't have a philosophical objection to photos of people in public spaces. What really bothers them? The idea that some bottom-feeding male they deems unworthy of their attention might be deriving a modicum of sexual pleasure from their image nevertheless.

That's easy. There used to be a program on TV called "blind date" where a couple goes on a blind date followed by some guy carrying a huge ass video camera. Usually the girl would be on her good behavior for about the first 30 minutes, but inevitably she'd forget the camera was there and let her true self out (sometimes good, sometimes bad).

Something changed Vox, with culture and the internet. Teen agers took over the world I suppose, because it's now all about being seen, look at me, here I am. Older women don't have that same attitude, we're rather horrified by security cameras in grocery stories and seeing ourselves on close circuit TV. We tend to value privacy in ways the younger generation can't even comprehend.

It has chilling implications that go far beyond interpersonal relationships. Consider the struggle Snowden faces trying to convince an entire generation busy publically posting half naked pictures of themselves, that privacy may be a thing of value.

Do we actually know that Sanghani and Burrowes peruse celebrity photos, upload risque selfies, and vote for CCTV surveillance?

I actually don't doubt that Vox's conclusion is applicable to many, many western women. But I do question whether there is sufficient evidence for his conclusion to be applied to the specific women used to support his conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I’ve noticed for a long time the notion of “desexualized zones” in public life. Usually these are work, church, public transportation, and sidewalks. In these locations, women object to interacting with all but the most attractive men.

Note – I’m not talking about creepshots or getting hit on. In these spaces, women are insisting that men be confronted about, and deterred from, looking at them, speaking to them, or acknowledging their presence in any way.

There are reports of pastors confronting men in church for asking a cute girl to go get coffee or for turning around in a pew and looking at the girl behind him. And we all know about the work environment – a man can lose his job for doing or saying anything that some woman doesn’t like.

Look, ladies – if you’re in a public space, unattractive men are sometimes going to look at you, talk to you, approach you, and ask you out. We live in a society in which you can be photographed or videotaped in public at any time. You wanted this society -- you wanted smartphones with digital photo and video capability. Don't be surprised that men purchase them too. If you can’t handle that, then maybe you should stay home.

"The only people I see complaining about unwanted attention are unattractive people who don’t get it."

Yeah, pretty much. Women of middling SMV who complain that the men they're attracted to want only to fuck them and refuse to marry them; and then complain further that their assortative peers want to marry them and offer commitment to them.

Well in Europe you apparently have the right to force ISP and Content Providers to delete you, so I would just expect those laws to get stronger because women can't ever be held accountable for their own actions.

It strikes me that if a woman does not wish to have her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like put on public display on the internet, then one possible way to go about eliminating this possibility is to not put her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like on public display in the first place.

OK, a little bit difficult given today's trends in clothing, but achievable for the motivated, no? I know that my wife and daughters achieve this, as do I and my sons. And for what it's worth, I've yet to have anyone, let alone anyone worth getting to know, come to me or my wife and comment that we were somehow less worthy because these were not prominently on display.

Taking the picture so you can fap to it in private is one thing, it's the posting it on the Internet so that everybody in your creepshot "social" group can fap to it that would give me the heebs (assuming that I were a likely target for such picture taking, which, for various reasons, I am not.)

On the other hand, this practice may just be the new face of public shaming. We'll see if it has a useful effect or not.

These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.

How do you know these are the same women? Isn't it possible--indeed, likely--that there are some women who happily expose themselves online and don't care who else exposes them, and others whose sense of privacy is better developed?

Also, the title of this post is misleading. Nowhere in the linked article is it suggested that creepshotting should be criminalized.

The Soccer Fans Another tactician left his job after World Cup 2014 but this time it wasn't & because of failing to deliver as Jorge Luis Pinto was a success in that tournament. The Colombian tactician manage to take his side, Costa Rica, marching into the Quarter Finals of World Cup before being eliminated from penalty shoot out drama. Visit at http://www.thesoccerfans.org/

"...but she must be well-behaved and ladylike, and remember that a lady never did anything that could attract attention." By the Shores of Silver Lake by Laura Ingalls WilderRecently read this and thought it was very interesting.How times have changed.

The men taking these photos are simultaneously guilty of two unforgivable crimes:

#1 violating rule one and two of being men: 1. be attractive 2. do not be unattractive

#2 existing

See the real violation is that hot men are not taking the photos and hot men are not fapping to them. And this is why women have to prove to me they have a seat at the discussion table instead of being let in just because they want to. This trait is also evidence of why women have no place deciding who it is they will marry or have a romantic relationship with -- without, of course, the go between of a father or other male authority figure who has a right to be in that position (blood, marriage). And certainly the man's right is not subject to the woman's decision.

Yes, I am saying all of Game's external effects (the dating dynamic outside of marriage) is due to women being given the choice in marriage. We desperately need to teach our daughters that their marriages will be arranged and they need not worry themselves with that choice. I swear that burden alone is probably what causes most of women's insane attributes these days.

Also, the title of this post is misleading. Nowhere in the linked article is it suggested that creepshotting should be criminalized.

Do you not think that the jealous-because-she-will-never-ever-a-subject-of-what-she's-complaining-about authorette would, if given the opportunity, wouldn't criminalize taking photographs of people without their explicit permission?

[Note, such a law would never survive judicial review. Every news agency in the country would challenge it for the simple reason that it would then be illegal to take news photographs of people rioting, etc.]

Do you not think that the jealous-because-she-will-never-ever-a-subject-of-what-she's-complaining-about authorette would, if given the opportunity, criminalize taking photographs of people without their explicit permission?

Based on general female tendencies, sure, I believe it's possible. But the article gives no evidence for that belief, and some for the opposite. It describes in detail how careful creepshotters are to stay within the limits of the law. After extensively quoting psychologist Nina Burrowes, it ends with a reference to Dr. Burrowes' statement that "that doesn't mean we should criminalise creeping."

"It strikes me that if a woman does not wish to have her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like put on public display on the internet, then one possible way to go about eliminating this possibility is to not put her bosom, derriere, undergarments, and the like on public display in the first place."

Are you fucking kidding me? Really, like, can't you see what you are actually typing? Ok, so there's some dude taking pictures of women's privates without their consent and posting them online, but the one to blame here is the woman for, what, not wearing a full body suit? Oh, yeah sure, that's probably because the creepy dude HAD to take a picture of her, right? He probably had no other choice, poor thing :( Perhaps, someday men will learn that the world doesn't revolve around them, and that women might actually not be wearing "revealing" clothing to be a target for disrespect (this includes cat-calling). Shocker, right? I don't expect you to understand, you already seem to be single-minded misogynists with 19th century values. But oh well, one can only hope that at least one of you will see this comment and for a just second think that women are actual human beings who deserve respect.